Wednesday, April 30, 2014

So, we’re on a first name basis now?

Nicolas Cage’s name has been a
real deterrent for me when it comes to movies over the past few years. I honestly actively avoid anything with his
name attached. I can’t honestly say
that, until ‘The Croods’ last year, I had not seen a Nicolas Cage film since ‘World
Trade Center’ in 2006. In looking over
his filmography, it looks like I didn’t miss much at all. Now, when ‘Joe’ was announced I was intrigued
because of two things. First, David
Gordon Green, while not a director I adore, has a pretty interesting
filmography. He has a unique style of
direction, earthy and honest, and he likes to build on very human themes. Second, and possibly more intriguing, was
that it was staring (or co-staring) young Tye Sheridan. Now I had just seen ‘Mud’, where Sheridan
completely stole the show and cemented himself as one to watch. I couldn’t wait to see him sink his teeth
into something else.

But then there was Cage’s name at
the top of the poster, and I hesitated.

I’m glad that the hesitation was
brief, because while ‘Joe’ is not a perfect film, it is a very good one and
offers Cage’s best performance since he won an Oscar, and one that completely
strips him of every hammy, overbearing tick he has created as an actor and
forces him to live outside of his persona and create something very intimate,
very controlled and human.

But the film still belongs to Tye
Sheridan.

‘Joe’, much like ‘Mud’, gives us
a glimpse at life in the poor, destitute south.
It also introduces us to families with real internal problems and
lonesome men carrying baggage. In fact, ‘Joe’
feels an awful lot like ‘Mud’, just a little less focused. While the film itself is anchored by the two
leads, the film’s splintered supporting characters either lack depth needed to
make them feel important, or they tack on some clichéd depth that makes them
feel unauthentic.

‘Joe’ tells us the story of two
troubled individuals. First, you have
Joe. Nearing 50, Joe has spent a decent
amount of time behind bars and is forced to keep his head low and walk the
other way for fear his drinking and his temper will get the better of him once
again. Gary also has to learn to keep
his head low, for fear that his alcoholic father won’t beat him for raising
it. Gary, intent on taking care of his
mother and sister, who have been neglected and abused by his wandering drunk of
a father, takes up a job working for Joe.
Joe takes a liking to Gary and finds himself invested in him and his
life and working towards breaking him away from his father and helping him
built his own stability. Sadly, the
people in both of their lives (or the people that loiter around it) are intent
on breaking both of them down.

For me, there are a few things
that don’t work about ‘Joe’. First, Joe’s
own relationship with the law feels a tad redundant and not fully fleshed
out. He’s harassed by cops from time to
time, and those scenes in particular feel unnecessary and distracting. Joe’s backstory needed a little more time
too. We get fleeting mentions of his
past, including children and grandchildren, but they are mentioned and then
forgotten, and while this could be the point, it almost felt like an unnecessary
diversion. My biggest issue though comes
in the form of the film’s obligatory villain, Willie-Russell. We don’t see it, but apparently he got into
it with Joe and so he hates him. Then he
gets into it with Gary (we see that altercation) and so he hates him too. While this vendetta may work for the film’s
finale (although it wasn’t entirely necessary) it is the character himself that
doesn’t quite work. He just feels corny
and ridiculous (especially his whole “I went through a windshield” line that he
utters a few times). He’s just a dumb
villain and with Gary’s father being the film’s chief antagonist, and a very
successful one, I just can’t see why Willie-Russell wasn’t cut from the script.

Other than this though, I really
liked this one a lot. The final few
scenes brought this repulsive thrill factor (my stomach was on the floor) that
brought the film somewhere instead of leaving it as an antii-climactic
character study. But really, it is the
performances by Cage and Sheridan that anchor this film. Gary Poulter (who was actually a real
homeless man found by Green and offered the role) is also exceptional
here. He’s truly convincing, to the
point where I have a feeling he was pretty much playing an exaggerated version
of himself. It’s a shame he died shortly
after filming.

Cage, more reserved and internal
than I’ve EVER seen him, is soulful and honest here, filling in the blanks left
by the script and making Joe feel real from head to toe. His mannerisms are all expressive and yet
never overwrought. He even handles his
bigger, louder scenes with this depth I haven’t seen from him in years. But, this is Sheridan’s place to shine, and
he does so with so much promise that I’m spellbound. He anchors this movie with such realism. He lives and breathes this character. The childish traits help establish an honest
age that is prematurely aged by circumstance.
You believe every outburst, every solemn retraction, every earnest plea. You can feel his trembling, his brooding, his
observing and you can see every ounce of ‘performance’ leave him while he soaks
in the atmosphere created by his character.

He’s one to watch, for sure!

So, I can say that despite my few
reservations, I highly recommend ‘Joe’.
It does feel like a copycat of sorts to ‘Mud’, carrying very similar
themes and characters and atmosphere, and ‘Mud’ was better thought out overall,
but ‘Joe’ does have its own personality that deserves your attention.

I give this a B. It has its clear flaws, but it really shines in other areas that make this well worth seeing. Oscar will probably pass entirely on this, but I'd love for some sort of critical revival of Sheridan in the Supporting Actor race. Who knows. We all though 'Mud' was going to be a no-show entirely with awards, and it managed to get mentions for McConaughey throughout the season. Granted, he was having one of those years, but you never know. That being said, I strongly feel that within the next five years, Sheridan will be an Oscar nominee, and within the next ten he'll be an Academy Award winner.

I agree that Tye is perhaps more of the star here than Cage, that kid is amazing! I'm curious to see him in a role where he gets to wear a suit or something, living in the city, as I've seen 2 films of his back to back where he's a poor, destitute kid.

I do like Cage's soulful performance, wish he'd do more roles like this!

I really enjoyed this film as I hope it's a major step forward for David Gordon Green who really needed to get back with his roots as I didn't like Your Highness nor The Sitter as I think they were projects that he was hired to do and it didn't work. I'm not sure if Cage will get back into real acting but at least it's a sign that he's still got some juice in him to remind people why he was once so good.

About Me

What is there to say? I love movies, books, music...whatever and I love talking about it. I love predicting Oscars and publishing my own personal awards (Fistis!) and I love hearing what you have to say about what I have to post. It's come a long way from it's very humble (and slightly embarrassing) beginnings and has turned into a blog that I'm very proud to be the founder of.